Discussion:
Government to pay for broadband
(too old to reply)
Roy
2015-06-21 14:03:25 UTC
Permalink
The FCC has decided to help pay for broadband via the lifeline program.
It now covers landline, cellular, and broadband services. The FCC
will also take over much of the administration of the program.

According to the FCC, the new program will not cost any more. It will
financed "by raising entry barriers and lowering potential for fraud by
moving eligibility screening to the government. The program will next
expand into selling bridges in Brooklyn.

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-takes-steps-modernize-and-reform-lifeline-broadband

http://www.ibtimes.com/fcc-votes-add-broadband-internet-access-lifeline-program-1973109
n***@sbcglobal.net
2015-06-21 23:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy
The FCC has decided to help pay for broadband via the lifeline program.
It now covers landline, cellular, and broadband services. The FCC
will also take over much of the administration of the program.
According to the FCC, the new program will not cost any more. It will
financed "by raising entry barriers and lowering potential for fraud by
moving eligibility screening to the government. The program will next
expand into selling bridges in Brooklyn.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-takes-steps-modernize-and-reform-lifeline-broadband
http://www.ibtimes.com/fcc-votes-add-broadband-internet-access-lifeline-program-1973109
Leaving broadband to the commercial enterprises has not worked very well has it? The FCC is also supposed to override state laws passed to block municipal broadband services including here in California where the law reads you can't have one if a commercial service is already in the community. These are known as "pull the ladder up laws" and unfair.
Roy
2015-06-22 00:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Roy
The FCC has decided to help pay for broadband via the lifeline
program. It now covers landline, cellular, and broadband services.
The FCC will also take over much of the administration of the
program.
According to the FCC, the new program will not cost any more. It
will financed "by raising entry barriers and lowering potential for
fraud by moving eligibility screening to the government. The
program will next expand into selling bridges in Brooklyn.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-takes-steps-modernize-and-reform-lifeline-broadband
http://www.ibtimes.com/fcc-votes-add-broadband-internet-access-lifeline-program-1973109
Leaving broadband to the commercial enterprises has not worked very
well has it? The FCC is also supposed to override state laws passed
to block municipal broadband services including here in California
where the law reads you can't have one if a commercial service is
already in the community. These are known as "pull the ladder up
laws" and unfair.
You need to read the articles. The FCC is not taking over broadband.
They are just using tax dollars to subsidize it for low income people.
The program will be similar to the free cellphone service they give out now.
Jeff Liebermann
2015-06-22 06:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy
Post by Roy
http://www.ibtimes.com/fcc-votes-add-broadband-internet-access-lifeline-program-1973109
You need to read the articles. The FCC is not taking over broadband.
They are just using tax dollars to subsidize it for low income people.
The program will be similar to the free cellphone service they give out now.
Not so similar. The clue is in the fine print and in a quote from the
above URL:

"Additionally, the update will rethink the program's
application process, including further protecting privacy
and eliminating carriers' ability to select who is eligible.
That process would be moved to the government."

Currently, the cellular providers deal with qualifications and
applications. Now the government is taking over. So, the obvious
question is why? My conspiratorial guess(tm) is that the cellular
providers have been doing a far too good a job of filtering out
deadbeats, government cronies, and scam artists. I have a friend that
is officially impoverished and told me that the cell companies
requirements were thorough and verifiable in that the recipient had to
be currently on an approved public assistance program. He indicates
that under the current arrangement, fraud would be difficult.

My guess(tm) is that the FCC wants to bring more free cell phones and
free internet into the hands of their "friends". Never mind the real
poor, which will have to do with whatever is left. I can't think of
any other reason why the FCC would want to take over the filtering,
especially since they apparently don't have the necessary funding or
staff. Well, maybe to grow the bureaucracy but the amounts involved
are quite small.

Since the FCC intends to handle the program eligibility filtering, the
cell phone and internet providers probably won't have much say in who
gets the service and who gets rejected. They might have some say in
the beginning, but just one high profile "discrimination" court case
should put an end to that. They probably won't care since having the
government do their work saves them money. If the FCC does find
someone cheating, there's little they can do to recover the money
since enforcement is in the hands of the Justice Dept which does not
enforce actions that cost them more to enforce than they can collect.
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
David Kaye
2015-06-22 07:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
If the FCC does find
someone cheating, there's little they can do to recover the money
since enforcement is in the hands of the Justice Dept which does not
enforce actions that cost them more to enforce than they can collect.
I'm not worried about people cheating the system, since if they are spending
so much of their time going after perqs like this, then it's likely they
actually need them. People who sweat the small stuff are often quite
literally sweating the small stuff.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Jeff Liebermann
2015-06-22 15:41:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015 00:44:37 -0700, "David Kaye"
Post by David Kaye
Post by Jeff Liebermann
If the FCC does find
someone cheating, there's little they can do to recover the money
since enforcement is in the hands of the Justice Dept which does not
enforce actions that cost them more to enforce than they can collect.
I'm not worried about people cheating the system, since if they are spending
so much of their time going after perqs like this, then it's likely they
actually need them. People who sweat the small stuff are often quite
literally sweating the small stuff.
Sounds good. I could almost accept that as logical, but not quite.
There's a big difference between a subsidized cell phone to allegedly
help a homeless person get a job, and a subsidized internet connection
for someone that already has proper shelter and is currently paying
rent and utility bills. If Wheeler were serious, he would subsidize
mobile wi-fi internet connections laptops, smartphones, and tablets
for those without a place to plug in their devices. My guess that
would mean cellular hotspots for the homeless camps, plug-in cellular
modems, and discounts on tables and phones with cellular internet
features.

Subsidized internet service might also mean an extension of the
existing subsidized cellular program to include the data plan on
smartphones. At this time, you cannot activate a smartphone on the
major cellular providers without a data plan. (Most MVNO's have no
problems with voice only on a smartphone). The Obamaphone program
only covers basic service but NOT cellular data. So, this would be a
boom to stolen smartphone sales to the homeless.

The FCC press release includes both home and mobile subsidized data:
<https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-takes-steps-modernize-and-reform-lifeline-broadband>
While over 95% of households with incomes of $150,000 or
more have access, only 48% of those making less than $25,000
have service at home.
Low-income consumers disproportionately use smart phones
for Internet access but nearly 50% of them have had to cancel
or suspend smartphone service due to financial hardship.
I find it odd that someone who allegedly cannot afford ordinary voice
cellular service, will now be able to afford voice plus data service
after the $9.25/month subsidy.

There are some other land mines in the press release, such as
"Adopting minimum service standards for both voice and broadband
service". I don't quite know what that means, but I'm fairly sure it
means more control over the cellular providers by the FCC. Coupled
with "How to encourage more competition to improve price and service"
suggests FCC enforced price regulation, probably to insure the
cellular providers profits.
Post by David Kaye
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
In Avast, please turn OFF checking outgoing email and the advertising
at the bottom of your outgoing messages will go away.
Settings -> Active Protection -> Mail Shield -> Customize
Uncheck the box "Scan outgoing mail SMTP". It used to be possible to
just disable the message, but that went away in the last major update.
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
David Kaye
2015-06-24 22:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Sounds good. I could almost accept that as logical, but not quite.
There's a big difference between a subsidized cell phone to allegedly
help a homeless person get a job, and a subsidized internet connection
for someone that already has proper shelter and is currently paying
rent and utility bills.
Name a business today that hires based on the telephone. Every one I know
posts their job openings on the web in some form or fashion. For the most
part you literally cannot even get a job interview without going online.

In the Secion 8 hotel where I put in wi-fi some months back, most of the
tenants are people who USED to have it all together, but fell on hard times
recently. So, they have their tablets, laptops, and whatnot, but don't have
service. It's either use the hotel's wi-fi or stand in line at the library
and wait to use their internet.

One example is a tenant who was a well-paid fork lift operator, got T-boned
while off-duty. Suffered back and abdominal injuries. So, no worker's
comp, a bare-bones medical plan, and aside from a little disability payment
he was able to cobble together, he has only enough money for rent and food
now. He ran through his savings in less than a year and ended up in Section
8 hotel.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Jeff Liebermann
2015-06-25 02:21:14 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:59:39 -0700, "David Kaye"
Post by David Kaye
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Sounds good. I could almost accept that as logical, but not quite.
There's a big difference between a subsidized cell phone to allegedly
help a homeless person get a job, and a subsidized internet connection
for someone that already has proper shelter and is currently paying
rent and utility bills.
Name a business today that hires based on the telephone.
I never suggested that I believed that. However, the original
justification for passing out subsidized cell phones for the poor was
to help them get jobs on the assumption that this would somehow
expedite the process.
<https://www.fcc.gov/lifeline>
"Since 1985, the Lifeline program has provided a discount
on phone service for qualifying low-income consumers to ensure
that all Americans have the opportunities and security that
phone service brings, including being able to connect to
jobs, family and emergency services."

<http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kimkomando/story/2012-06-01/low-income-lifeline-plan/55315532/1>
"It can also be a serious disadvantage if you are a job seeker.
Immediate access to the Internet and telephone are important
to search effectively and to be immediately available when
that important job interview comes along."

<http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/wesley_clark_defends_low-incom.html>
"In America, we believe we want all Americans -- even those
at the bottom of the income scale -- to be connected to the
emergency networks, to report crime, to call for hospitals,
to call for police protection, and get jobs," Clark said.

I couldn't find the original pitch line from 1985, but the above
should suffice for now.
Post by David Kaye
Every one I know
posts their job openings on the web in some form or fashion. For the most
part you literally cannot even get a job interview without going online.
Probably true. The last time I went looking for employment was 1974,
so I'm a bit behind the times on how it's done. I kinda assumed that
someone would eventually call if only to see if the applicant is for
real and can be reliably contacted. If a business is interested in
hiring at the bottom, I suspect email might not be an option while a
phone might work. However, I'm guessing.

Incidentally, every job and most consulting contracts that I've gotten
in the past were in person. No phone, no email, no internet. However,
I don't exactly fit the profile of someone that needs get a subsidized
phone in order to get a job.

Incidentally, I read somewhere that many subsidized phones go to
immigrant families that are expecting kids in order to notify the
father that he's needed at home or hospital.
Post by David Kaye
In the Secion 8 hotel where I put in wi-fi some months back, most of the
tenants are people who USED to have it all together, but fell on hard times
recently. So, they have their tablets, laptops, and whatnot, but don't have
service. It's either use the hotel's wi-fi or stand in line at the library
and wait to use their internet.
I take it then that none of them have a subsidized cell phone.

So, if Wheeler's grand plan for subsidized internet work, how would
these people get their subsidized internet in the hotel? I don't see
them renting a cable or DSL modem. Cellular data with an external USB
dongle might be possible if they have a laptop. Other than those, I
just don't see how it would work for your hotel residents.
Post by David Kaye
One example is a tenant who was a well-paid fork lift operator, got T-boned
while off-duty. Suffered back and abdominal injuries. So, no worker's
comp, a bare-bones medical plan, and aside from a little disability payment
he was able to cobble together, he has only enough money for rent and food
now. He ran through his savings in less than a year and ended up in Section
8 hotel.
He should be able to apply for permanent disability. It's not much,
but it might help. Lacking funding, he should also qualify for
subsidized medical under Obamacare. I'm sympathetic to his plight,
but how many people are in similar situations? Probably not many.

Before you call me an inhuman and greed money grubber, let's put some
numbers on the plan.
<http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2013/05/vitter_fighting_with_mobile_ph.html>
"Vitter said Lifeline started in 1984 to help people who
couldn't afford landline phone service and expanded to mobile
phones in 2008, which ballooned it from a $143 million program
to $2 billion in 2012."
My guess(tm) is more of the same when the FCC adds internet access. I
would have no problem giving phones, internet, and medical services to
someone like your fork lift operator, if the program can guarantee
that it only goes to qualified recipients. With the FCC running the
application system, I just don't see it happening. Granted *SOME*
cell companies have turned it into a profit center, but that's where
the FCC should have clamped down, and didn't.
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Mike Hunt
2015-06-25 05:12:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Probably true. The last time I went looking for employment was 1974,
so I'm a bit behind the times on how it's done. I kinda assumed that
someone would eventually call if only to see if the applicant is for
real and can be reliably contacted. If a business is interested in
hiring at the bottom, I suspect email might not be an option while a
phone might work. However, I'm guessing.
We still do phone interviews before bringing them here for an in-person
interview. As you later point out though, we are not targeting people who
would normally get a subsidized phone. I would think the people who would
normally get a subsidized phone would be using it for much of their
employment communication (as opposed to email).
David Kaye
2015-06-25 08:59:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Hunt
We still do phone interviews before bringing them here for an in-person
interview. As you later point out though, we are not targeting people who
would normally get a subsidized phone. I would think the people who would
normally get a subsidized phone would be using it for much of their
employment communication (as opposed to email).
Email is NOT the issue (I should have corrected Jeff on this). A person can
go to a library and check their email. What I'm talking about is APPLYING
for jobs, APPLYING for government services, etc. It's all moved to the web.

Some months back I applied for a parttime job at KQED to supplement my
income. No phone calls. Everything is handled via the web. I uploaded my
resume. That's what you DO these days.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
David Kaye
2015-06-25 08:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Probably true. The last time I went looking for employment was 1974,
so I'm a bit behind the times on how it's done. I kinda assumed that
someone would eventually call if only to see if the applicant is for
real and can be reliably contacted. If a business is interested in
hiring at the bottom, I suspect email might not be an option while a
phone might work. However, I'm guessing.
Whether it's a programming job, an office admin job, a zookeeper, or a
janitor, and whether the company is an Intel, a Starbucks, BART, or the
DMV -- they all put their hiring online today. Some have extensive vetting
software in place to get rid of scatter-shot applicants right off the bat,
and some just have forms that end up as a mailto.

About the only jobs where someone can walk in the door and hand in a resume
are low-paying local retail jobs.
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Incidentally, every job and most consulting contracts that I've gotten
in the past were in person. No phone, no email, no internet. However,
I don't exactly fit the profile of someone that needs get a subsidized
phone in order to get a job.
Same here. We're both entrepreneurs. We're not the average worker.
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Incidentally, I read somewhere that many subsidized phones go to
immigrant families that are expecting kids in order to notify the
father that he's needed at home or hospital.
I don't believe that this is where "most" phones go, but I have no problem
if people are using the phones for family emergencies.
Post by Jeff Liebermann
I take it then that none of them have a subsidized cell phone.
I have no idea, but not many in my experience. Most of these folks have the
pay-as-you-go phones like TrakFone and similar phones you buy from a locked
case at WalMart.
Post by Jeff Liebermann
So, if Wheeler's grand plan for subsidized internet work, how would
these people get their subsidized internet in the hotel? I don't see
them renting a cable or DSL modem.
Wired and wireless.
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Cellular data with an external USB
dongle might be possible if they have a laptop. Other than those, I
just don't see how it would work for your hotel residents.
You've read my posts previously. The hotel has 75Mbps from Comcast, part
they use for the office, and the rest goes to a main router which
distributes Ethernet to each floor. At each floor I've set up subnet
routers and WAPs. In the case I'm talking about it took 15 WAPs to reach
all 74 tenants, but we did it! And at the extreme end of the system, 3
subnets down, I could still get about 15Mbps, and that's in the evening with
people streaming video.
Post by Jeff Liebermann
He should be able to apply for permanent disability. It's not much,
but it might help. Lacking funding, he should also qualify for
subsidized medical under Obamacare. I'm sympathetic to his plight,
but how many people are in similar situations? Probably not many.
LOTS of people are in that position! Most people are a paycheck or two away
from being destitute! I've seen it happen with people I know. Jeff, you
just don't get out much. Sorry to have to tell you that.
Post by Jeff Liebermann
<http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2013/05/vitter_fighting_with_mobile_ph.html>
"Vitter said Lifeline started in 1984 to help people who
couldn't afford landline phone service and expanded to mobile
phones in 2008, which ballooned it from a $143 million program
to $2 billion in 2012."
Simple solution is like what Bill Clinton did to reduce the welfare rolls:
Tighten elegibility.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Jeff Liebermann
2015-06-26 15:55:39 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 01:55:54 -0700, "David Kaye"
Post by David Kaye
About the only jobs where someone can walk in the door and hand in a resume
are low-paying local retail jobs.
I was referring to the entire hiring process, not just the initial
application. Presumably, there is some interaction between the
applicant and the company during this process that involves a
telephone call.
Post by David Kaye
Post by Jeff Liebermann
So, if Wheeler's grand plan for subsidized internet work, how would
these people get their subsidized internet in the hotel? I don't see
them renting a cable or DSL modem.
Wired and wireless.
I was hoping that you could be more specific.

Wireless is easy enough as it could be an extension to the current
cell phone subsidy to pay for the data portion of the cell phone bill.
Presumably, this would be used mostly by rural job seekers, to fill
out potentially large online applications on a smart phone with a 3"
screen. Unfortunately, Wheeler offered only $9.20/month for this
subsidy, which might pay for only a few megabytes of traffic. Of
course, such smart phones would be provided by the recipient, probably
in the form of a stolen phone. Is this what you were visualizing, or
something else?

Wired seems a bit more complicated. $9.20/mo would not cover much
over dialup service. The cheapest DSL or cable service I can find is
about $30/month. So, the government will provide about 30% the cost
which seems like a big help. So, where are they going to get the
other 70% plus equipment charges? The few homeless that I've met are
rather portable people, moving from one situation to another as space
and funding are available. I would not expect them to remain long
enough in one place to justify a permanent wired connection. I just
don't see how it will work for real poor.

Obviously I'm speculating off the top of my head with guesswork. I
was hoping that you could do better.
Post by David Kaye
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Cellular data with an external USB
dongle might be possible if they have a laptop. Other than those, I
just don't see how it would work for your hotel residents.
You've read my posts previously. The hotel has 75Mbps from Comcast, part
they use for the office, and the rest goes to a main router which
distributes Ethernet to each floor. At each floor I've set up subnet
routers and WAPs. In the case I'm talking about it took 15 WAPs to reach
all 74 tenants, but we did it! And at the extreme end of the system, 3
subnets down, I could still get about 15Mbps, and that's in the evening with
people streaming video.
I remember, but don't recall the details. Sounds like a workable
system as long as someone doesn't abuse it. So, assuming that all 74
tenants qualify for Wheeler's subsidy plan, possibly in the form of a
voucher to give to the hotel owner to help pay of the internet
service, that would net:
74 * $2.90 = $214.60/month
which could make a tolerable profit for the owner. All the hotel
owner needs to do is charge the tenants $2.90/month for internet
service, which would essentially force them to apply for the subsidy.
Post by David Kaye
LOTS of people are in that position! Most people are a paycheck or two away
from being destitute! I've seen it happen with people I know. Jeff, you
just don't get out much. Sorry to have to tell you that.
You're right. I'm moderately ignorant of what it means to be flat
broke. I was close to hitting bottom in 1995 and 2006, but I had
assets against which I could borrow money and was able to work to dig
myself out of a financial hole. I assume these people don't have
those advantages. Perhaps it's wrong for me to expect something
useful to come from my tax contributions, even if it is in the form of
expecting the money to go to those that could genuinely benefit from
it, instead of yet another example of government inefficiency and
corporate abuse.

To be totally honest, I don't care and have a simple solution. Instead
of the current system, I would gladly give about 10% of my income
(before deductions) to the new federal Department of Handouts. I would
have no control over how the money is spent. Presumably, it could all
go to worthy causes, or be stolen by officials or their cronies. In
trade, the Dept of Handouts would agree not to bother me with requests
for additional funding, and agree to live within its easily
predictable income.
Post by David Kaye
Post by Jeff Liebermann
<http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2013/05/vitter_fighting_with_mobile_ph.html>
"Vitter said Lifeline started in 1984 to help people who
couldn't afford landline phone service and expanded to mobile
phones in 2008, which ballooned it from a $143 million program
to $2 billion in 2012."
Tighten elegibility.
It appears that you missed the implication of the subsidized cell
phone program growing 14 times in 4 years. It must be a rather
popular program because we have an ever growing class of impoverished
citizens, or perhaps it might be growing because of gross abuse and
misappropriation.

My guess(tm) is a reasonable residential POTS or voice only cell phone
bill is about $30/month. $2 billion in subsidies would make 67
million recipients or about 21% of the US population. Yep, we must be
a truly impoverished nation.

Tightening eligibility is probably a good idea, and I'm sure it will
be initial implementation of any internet subsidy program. However,
after a few years, and the funding for enforcement is quietly
withdrawn, the program will follow a path towards corruption rather
than efficiency. Please note that the FCC has been reducing their
enforcement budget to the point of extinction, culminating in the
proposed closure of 2/3 of it's field offices (which handle
enforcement). Knowing Wheeler, if he gets control over subsidized
internet applicant selection, it will be outsourced to a private
program management company, which have demonstrated their value by
soliciting for applicants and coaching them in how to bypass
qualification requirements. How does 700,000 duplicate accounts in
2012 sound?
<http://www.newson6.com/story/19914572/oklahoma-is-ground-zero-for-government-cell-phone-fraud>
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
David Kaye
2015-06-27 00:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
You're right. I'm moderately ignorant of what it means to be flat
broke. I was close to hitting bottom in 1995 and 2006, but I had
assets against which I could borrow money and was able to work to dig
myself out of a financial hole. I assume these people don't have
those advantages.
Many people have been married and have to pay alimony, child support, car
loans, etc. Some of them had homes and lost jobs but were saddled with
mortgage debt. Others have had student loans that ate them alive. When all
cylinders are running (aka they have a job) then everything works. But lose
a job for whatever reason and things start crashing down all around them.

When Bush invaded Iraq I remember driving through Merced and seeing banners
drapped across streets, "We support you President Bush!" I stopped off at a
diner and listened to the conversations. Well, as I listened I realized
that these guys had families, mortgages, cars, and lots of other expenses
where they had to support the status quo. Even if they didn't believe in
Bush they had to support the invasion because that meant money coming into
their families (lots of military volunteers).

I don't know about you, but I am single, and have no debt whatsoever. I can
afford to not take jobs I don't want. I don't live paycheck to paycheck.
Most people -- and I mean most people -- don't live this way.
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Perhaps it's wrong for me to expect something
useful to come from my tax contributions, even if it is in the form of
expecting the money to go to those that could genuinely benefit from
it, instead of yet another example of government inefficiency and
corporate abuse.
As long as money gets spent it is useful to society. I think it was Warren
Buffett who said, "Money is like manure; it only works when you spread it
around." And this is literally true. I always refer back to Henry Ford and
his hand in building the middle class. Overnight in the 1910s he literally
doubled the pay on his assembly line. This did 3 things: It attracted the
best workers to his plants; it gave his workers enough money so that they
could afford to buy his cars; and, it forced his competitors to raise their
wages, too.

So, don't worry, the subsidies are helping to keep our society together.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
sms
2015-06-25 13:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Probably true. The last time I went looking for employment was 1974,
so I'm a bit behind the times on how it's done. I kinda assumed that
someone would eventually call if only to see if the applicant is for
real and can be reliably contacted. If a business is interested in
hiring at the bottom, I suspect email might not be an option while a
phone might work. However, I'm guessing.
At a job I got in 2000 they said I was the only person that ever mailed
in a paper resume so I stood out!
Post by Jeff Liebermann
My guess(tm) is more of the same when the FCC adds internet access. I
would have no problem giving phones, internet, and medical services to
someone like your fork lift operator, if the program can guarantee
that it only goes to qualified recipients. With the FCC running the
application system, I just don't see it happening. Granted *SOME*
cell companies have turned it into a profit center, but that's where
the FCC should have clamped down, and didn't.
It's a lot more likely that there will be less abuse with the FCC
running it versus the companies selling the service running it.
Jeff Liebermann
2015-06-26 16:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by sms
It's a lot more likely that there will be less abuse with the FCC
running it versus the companies selling the service running it.
I beg to differ:
<http://www.newson6.com/story/19914572/oklahoma-is-ground-zero-for-government-cell-phone-fraud>
"The FCC is the enforcement arm of the program and it has
threatened companies with fines, jail time and the loss of
their license if they're caught breaking the rules. However,
when we pressed the agency to show us how they've enforced
the Lifeline rules a spokesman could only point us to one
case where a company was actually punished. He says they're
still refining that part of the Lifeline program."

<https://www.google.com/#q=fcc+cracks+down+on+lifeline+phone+fraud>
Note the *NUMBER* of FCC "crackdowns" on free cell phone fraud. Seems
to be happening every year for at least the last 5 years. Also note
that there's much talk about the FCC "proposing" fines, but very
little as to whether such fines are actually collected. Collections
are done by the Justice Dept, not the FCC, and is usually handled by
some kind of lesser settlement. That's one reason for the big dollar
amounts.

Also, the FCC plans to close a large number of their field offices
(which do the enforcement) and is downsizing the FCC EB (enforcement
bureau) staff. Improvements in abuse enforcement are unlikely.
--
Jeff Liebermann ***@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
poldy
2015-06-26 18:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by sms
It's a lot more likely that there will be less abuse with the FCC
running it versus the companies selling the service running it.
<http://www.newson6.com/story/19914572/oklahoma-is-ground-zero-for-government-cell-phone-fraud>
"The FCC is the enforcement arm of the program and it has
threatened companies with fines, jail time and the loss of
their license if they're caught breaking the rules. However,
when we pressed the agency to show us how they've enforced
the Lifeline rules a spokesman could only point us to one
case where a company was actually punished. He says they're
still refining that part of the Lifeline program."
<https://www.google.com/#q=fcc+cracks+down+on+lifeline+phone+fraud>
Note the *NUMBER* of FCC "crackdowns" on free cell phone fraud. Seems
to be happening every year for at least the last 5 years. Also note
that there's much talk about the FCC "proposing" fines, but very
little as to whether such fines are actually collected. Collections
are done by the Justice Dept, not the FCC, and is usually handled by
some kind of lesser settlement. That's one reason for the big dollar
amounts.
Also, the FCC plans to close a large number of their field offices
(which do the enforcement) and is downsizing the FCC EB (enforcement
bureau) staff. Improvements in abuse enforcement are unlikely.
Well one FCC commissioner doesn't think the Internet is a necessity or a
human right:

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/06/internet-access-not-a-necessity-or-human-right-says-fcc-republican/
sms
2015-06-26 20:08:15 UTC
Permalink
On 6/26/2015 11:17 AM, poldy wrote:

<snip>
Post by poldy
Well one FCC commissioner doesn't think the Internet is a necessity or a
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/06/internet-access-not-a-necessity-or-human-right-says-fcc-republican/
He got confused. He thought he was talking about same-sex marriage.
David Kaye
2015-06-26 23:50:02 UTC
Permalink
At a job I got in 2000 they said I was the only person that ever mailed in
a paper resume so I stood out!
There is a lot to be said for using unconventional approaches to stand out.
I'm seriously considering restarting my yellow pages advertising. I STILL
get the occasional call from someone looking at an old ad. The last I ran
in the SF directory was about 4 years ago and I got a call about a month ago
from a video editor who needed computer help. He didn't look online; he
looked in the old phone book he had!




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Julian Macassey
2015-06-25 16:33:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kaye
Name a business today that hires based on the telephone.
IBM. Good enough for you?
--
I think sometimes my party gets all caught up in the second amendment, which is
fine, but we don’t protect the fourth amendment enough.” Sen Rand Paul 26/5/15
Brad Allen
2015-09-17 06:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Liebermann
Post by Roy
Post by Roy
http://www.ibtimes.com/fcc-votes-add-broadband-internet-access-lifeline-program-1973109
You need to read the articles. The FCC is not taking over broadband.
They are just using tax dollars to subsidize it for low income people.
The program will be similar to the free cellphone service they give out now.
Not so similar. The clue is in the fine print and in a quote from the
"Additionally, the update will rethink the program's
application process, including further protecting privacy
and eliminating carriers' ability to select who is eligible.
That process would be moved to the government."
Currently, the cellular providers deal with qualifications and
applications. Now the government is taking over. So, the obvious
question is why? My conspiratorial guess(tm) is that the cellular
providers have been doing a far too good a job of filtering out
deadbeats, government cronies, and scam artists. I have a friend
that is officially impoverished and told me that the cell companies
requirements were thorough and verifiable in that the recipient had
to be currently on an approved public assistance program. He
indicates that under the current arrangement, fraud would be
difficult.
Recent studies show that there is rampant fraud in the current (older)
system. Those studies could have uncovered fraud, or themselves be
fraud. Who knows? But they are pretty extreme, with things like 3x
the number of phones issued as eligible participants, etc. It might
be a different government program, though. And it could be as you
point out part of fakery and part of your theory, theoretically.
David Kaye
2015-09-17 19:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Allen
Recent studies show that there is rampant fraud in the current (older)
system. Those studies could have uncovered fraud, or themselves be
fraud. Who knows? But they are pretty extreme, with things like 3x
the number of phones issued as eligible participants, etc.
Whenever private companies administer public programs they take advantage of
every possible loophole and fraud they can do. Why? It makes them more
money. Big business is NOT our friend. They work against the consumer and
against the taxpayers. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that the cell
carriers are knowing working frauds against the government's program for
low-income phone users.

Back in the days of wired telco service, I remember a tech putting a couple
lines in the apartment building I managed. I was curious. Nobody had
moved. The tech told me he was terminating two lifeline lines at the demarc
block. "But what apartment are they going to?" "Apartments 113 and 115."
"But we don't have those apartment numbers. The first floor goes to 108,
the second goes to 208, etc. Are you sure you're in the right building? He
showed me his work orders. "But where are you going to put in the phones?"
"I'm only putting the lines in to the demarc block. It's not my
responsibility after that" Well, okay, let's see what happens.

Months went by and nobody in the building asked me for access or
surreptitiously hooked anything to the terminals. I put a butt set on the
lines and no dialtone. I talked to my friend, Marty, who worked at another
CO to see what he knew. He checked his records and saw no termination info
for those phantom apartments. It was puzzling. But no bills came, so I
just left it.

Months later I was talking with someone in routes and rates at telco and I
casually mentioned the ghost apartment termination. "Yeah, they went
hog-wild on that. There were orders from above to get X number of new
lifeline customers, so lines were run and installed but not terminated on a
switch, so the company was able to charge back for line installations. They
made a bundle on the lifeline subsidy."

That was after SBC bought PacBell and worked every angle they could to
squeeze money out of that company. Today, SBC is known as AT&T.

THAT is the way big business operates with taxpayer money intended for the
poor.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

David Kaye
2015-06-22 07:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy
You need to read the articles. The FCC is not taking over broadband.
They are just using tax dollars to subsidize it for low income people.
The program will be similar to the free cellphone service they give out now.
Dunno about the rest of you, but I have no problem with subsidizing minimal
important services for low-income people. We're a society, damn it! We're
not a feudal system.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
poldy
2015-06-23 16:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kaye
Post by Roy
You need to read the articles. The FCC is not taking over broadband.
They are just using tax dollars to subsidize it for low income people.
The program will be similar to the free cellphone service they give out now.
Dunno about the rest of you, but I have no problem with subsidizing minimal
important services for low-income people. We're a society, damn it! We're
not a feudal system.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I don't either, though broadband and cell phone service are viewed as
luxuries, since they were actually luxuries when they first were offered.

Certainly Internet access is now necessary, just to learn about services
or even to apply for jobs now. Maybe if there were dialup services
still available, they could have provided that to the low income people.

My folks pay about $10 a month for POTS under some program for seniors.
But they pay full freight for their Comcast service, with which they
use things like Skype to contact people overseas.

And they have Verizon service and use that for long distance calls.
Tak Nakamoto
2015-06-25 16:40:48 UTC
Permalink
"Roy" wrote

"Dunno about the rest of you, but I have no problem with subsidizing minimal
important services for low-income people. We're a society, damn it! We're
not a feudal system."

----------------


Reasonable internet access is fast becoming a necessity for everyone.

Consider the process of paying income taxes. We can still file by hard copy
via U.S. mail. But, it now becoming more difficult to get paper forms. Our
local branch library no longer has a full set of IRS and Franchise Tax Board
forms available for the taking. The librarians now suggest downloading
forms. The local post offices still have IRS forms, but the number of post
office branches is steadily being reduced. Some rural towns have no post
office nor do they have a library. Of course one can still call the IRS
1-800 number and have them mailed out. That requires a phone. (Much of rural
phone service as well as electricity is subsidized.) But as we all know,
mail service is steadily being reduced for good reasons and bad.

We can either subsidize private providers to provide service or we can
regulate the providers and require them to provide service as a public
utility. We can't leave a good portion of the population out in the cold.

Tak Nakamoto
Roy
2015-06-25 17:40:49 UTC
Permalink
I didn't write that. David Kaye did
Post by Tak Nakamoto
"Dunno about the rest of you, but I have no problem with subsidizing minimal
important services for low-income people. We're a society, damn it! We're
not a feudal system."
----------------
Reasonable internet access is fast becoming a necessity for everyone.
Consider the process of paying income taxes. We can still file by hard copy
via U.S. mail. But, it now becoming more difficult to get paper forms. Our
local branch library no longer has a full set of IRS and Franchise Tax Board
forms available for the taking. The librarians now suggest downloading
forms. The local post offices still have IRS forms, but the number of post
office branches is steadily being reduced. Some rural towns have no post
office nor do they have a library. Of course one can still call the IRS
1-800 number and have them mailed out. That requires a phone. (Much of rural
phone service as well as electricity is subsidized.) But as we all know,
mail service is steadily being reduced for good reasons and bad.
We can either subsidize private providers to provide service or we can
regulate the providers and require them to provide service as a public
utility. We can't leave a good portion of the population out in the cold.
Tak Nakamoto
Tak Nakamoto
2015-06-25 23:42:35 UTC
Permalink
"Roy" wrote

I didn't write that. David Kaye did

__________

Roy,

Sorry for my clumsiness and mistake. David Kaye did indeed write it.

I'm using Windows Live Mail for newsgroups. It does not handle this tasks as
well as Outlook Express. There are few controls for formatting newsgroup
replies.

Tak Nakamoto
Julian Macassey
2015-06-26 03:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tak Nakamoto
I'm using Windows Live Mail for newsgroups.
There's your mistake.
Post by Tak Nakamoto
It does not handle this tasks as well as Outlook Express. There
are few controls for formatting newsgroup replies.
Outhouse is hardly better.

Somehow Goggle and Microsnot manage to take standards
that have worked for decades and fuck them up. Anyone would think
they had no idea what they were doing, or maybe they just want us
all to use their crappy software.
--
"If you have done nothing wrong, comrade, you have nothing to fear."
- Lavrenti Beria, Stalin's head of the NKVD, the secret police.
David Kaye
2015-06-26 23:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tak Nakamoto
I'm using Windows Live Mail for newsgroups. It does not handle this tasks
as well as Outlook Express. There are few controls for formatting
newsgroup replies.
Outlook Express is pretty handy for newsgroups. I moved to it when my old
News eXpress (for Windows 95) became balky.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
n***@sbcglobal.net
2015-06-27 19:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kaye
Post by Tak Nakamoto
I'm using Windows Live Mail for newsgroups. It does not handle this tasks
as well as Outlook Express. There are few controls for formatting
newsgroup replies.
Outlook Express is pretty handy for newsgroups. I moved to it when my old
News eXpress (for Windows 95) became balky.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I'm used Thunderbird on Linux for newsgroups until TerraNews seemed to die a few months back. Using Google Groups now. TerraNews was often unreliable anyway.
Julian Macassey
2015-06-27 20:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@sbcglobal.net
I'm used Thunderbird on Linux for newsgroups until TerraNews
seemed to die a few months back. Using Google Groups now.
TerraNews was often unreliable anyway.
Goggle groups is a bastard, you can of course always use
eternal-september as you news feed and if you use Linux, you have
a wide choice of news reasders, slrn, tin, Thunderbird etc.

All of which, unlike the Goggle Monster word wrap.
--
Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. - Samuel Johnson
David Kaye
2015-06-26 23:51:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy
I didn't write that. David Kaye did
Yeah, but I hope you meant it!
Post by Roy
Post by Tak Nakamoto
"Dunno about the rest of you, but I have no problem with subsidizing minimal
important services for low-income people. We're a society, damn it!
We're
not a feudal system."
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
sms
2015-06-23 14:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roy
The FCC has decided to help pay for broadband via the lifeline program.
It now covers landline, cellular, and broadband services. The FCC
will also take over much of the administration of the program.
According to the FCC, the new program will not cost any more. It will
financed "by raising entry barriers and lowering potential for fraud by
moving eligibility screening to the government. The program will next
expand into selling bridges in Brooklyn.
Lifeline service started with landlines under president Reagan, and
expanded to cellular under president Bush (W). They have never been
involved in the sale of bridges.

It's about time the program was reformed because there was a lot of
abuse due to letting the companies selling the service, and making money
from it, also do the qualification of those that wanted the free
service. The companies were well-versed in how to advise people on how
to fake their eligibility.

If we have to have subsidized programs, it's better if they are specific
programs providing a good or service rather than providing money that
can be easily diverted to non-essential goods and services. It's also
better to ensure that those companies profiting from the programs don't
allow unqualified individuals from signing up. Self-regulation wasn't
working.

Tea-partiers were screaming about "Obama Phones" when technically they
should have been screaming about "Reagan Phones" or "Bush Phones." Now
they should be thrilled that the FCC, under Obama, is trying to fix the
problem that Reagan and Bush created.
Loading...